If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Guys,
I think the tone of some of these posts is harsh on Paul. It seems to me some frustration about other members or posts is being transferred to Paul.

I agree about the emailed audio files anecdote. This is why an understanding of how computers work is necessary. Those who understand know there is no need to listen to the files...a checksum would verify the fact the files are identical.

The issue here is not whether differences were heard. Rather we should accept they were heard and set about discovering why. We know expectation bias is one possibility and we know differences in the files is not a possibility. However, there may be other possibilities in terms of the listening test.
Darren

I think the tone of some of these posts is harsh on Paul. It seems to me some frustration about other members or posts is being transferred to Paul.

Originally Posted by paul.raulerson

I wasn't ready to dismiss it as swamp gas, because there is a possibility that something is going on I don't understand.

THe problem with this approach is that there is always such a possibility, so we wouldn't ever be able to dismiss anything. We have to use a scientific approach to filter out the likely from the probable from the vanishingly unlikely. Otherwise we'd waste our lives chasing rainbows.

I think that it is this kind of refusal to apply quality control to hypotheses which frustrates some members, especially in the field of audio reproduction, where it obvious that there are many, many, fools and charlatans operating.

Originally Posted by darrenyeats

The issue here is not whether differences were heard. Rather we should accept they were heard and set about discovering why. We know expectation bias is one possibility and we know differences in the files is not a possibility. However, there may be other possibilities in terms of the listening test.

Yes - placebos actually work. The oft-quoted example from medicine is that recipients of a sugar pill sometimes get better. The belief that they are being treated (and the attention of the doctor) is enough to instigate recovery.

The audio version of this could be a bog-standard cable, dressed up to look expensive and supplied with premium packaging, some blurb about what makes it superior and instructions on proper use (directionality and the like). The whole ritual involved in selecting, buying and fitting such a cable may well lead to a "real" perception of improved sound. The problem is that the final step in the audio chain is within the human mind.

Such a cable is still a fraud, because the engineering claims made are lies, even if the end result is a perception of improved sound in the mind of the user.

The placebo effect is very powerful - even more at odds with common sense is that it can work even if the subject knows, at least on an intellectual level, that they are getting nothing more than a placebo.

The human mind is extremely gullible. There are good explanations of why this is the case in the field of evolutionary psychology. The whole point of the scientific method is to recognise this and mitigate the effects. In the field of audio, it means we need to be very careful (and very sceptical) indeed.

Such a cable is still a fraud, because the engineering claims made are lies, even if the end result is a perception of improved sound in the mind of the user.

.

Yeah but it wont last over time, hence you are in the "upgrade" spiral

What can be mildly irritating as that no one reads the tread it is like a Relay race the next audiofool comes along and pose the same already answered and done questions without any apparent understanding of previous posts (hence the their posts ), and other rehash their tired response maybe in a more acerbic manner the 87th time around .

But no wonder about that, the overwhelming majority of the audio press is a part of this disinformation scam they feed on the cult and also provide the feedback loop for it all , but it needs to be done to spend some energy dispute this I will at least spent as munch time and energy on it as I wasted believing all this claptrap .

Not when the music is jazz. yEnc for jazz, uuencode for rock and popular and base64 for classical.

Originally Posted by Mnyb

Which font was used on the newsgroup any serifs would add a peculiar edge on stuff

Serifs don't add an edge, they add flair!

Originally Posted by andy_c

I use only monospaced fonts when reading newsgroups, as the uniform spacing between bytes reduces jitter considerably!

True but monospaced fonts make the music sound rigid and locked in place, since I like free jazz I would never use a monospaced font. And besides the track was stereo! DUH!

Originally Posted by paul.raulerson

It's really pretty simple - there is no club initiation to enjoy home audio as a hobby. No certification exams, nor any oversight agency checking credentials.

I'm not sure how you find "standards" for evaluating home audio on a personal basis.

Anyone is welcome to design, conduct, and publish any tests they like. Some of them are going to be pure crap - as witness the TAS articles in question.

I agree with you completely when one is talking about an individual evaluating equipment for their own personal use since it's their money and their ears. But I strongly disagree when one is evaluating and testing equipment for a formal, published review in a magazine sold to the general public.

Let's make no mistake these audio magazines do have an enormous influence on the high end audio market both for new and used equipment. Over the years I've tried to use this undue influence to my advantage by looking for used equipment that was "damned with faint praise" in the audio press. Often times one can buy used equipment which has been "damned with faint praise" for a very good price. On the other hand one will often have to overpay for equipment which has received high praise for the audio press.

Cases in point:

The Cambridge Audio DAC Magic which at the peak of its popularity in the audio press was sell used for almost the same as new ($425 new versus $375 used - not a good used to new ratio).

Energy Veritas speakers which were "damned with faint praise" if they were reviewed at all and therefore could be bought new for 50% of their original price and used for even less.

So make no mistake real harm is being done by the publication of that ridiculous Computer Music series in TAS and real money will be made by some manufacturers who will be selling nearly worthless products that they claim will overcome the problems pointed in the TAS series, problems that in reality do not exist.

guys,
i think the tone of some of these posts is harsh on paul. It seems to me some frustration about other members or posts is being transferred to paul.

I agree about the emailed audio files anecdote. This is why an understanding of how computers work is necessary. Those who understand know there is no need to listen to the files...a checksum would verify the fact the files are identical.

The issue here is not whether differences were heard. Rather we should accept they were heard and set about discovering why. We know expectation bias is one possibility and we know differences in the files is not a possibility. However, there may be other possibilities in terms of the listening test.
Darren

Guys,
I think the tone of some of these posts is harsh on Paul. It seems to me some frustration about other members or posts is being transferred to Paul.

I agree with this. I disagree with Paul. However, unlike item_audio, magiccarpetride, or ncarver, he didn't come in here dripping with attitude, didn't call anyone names or make any ad hominem arguments, didn't act like a pseudo-intellectual twit, etc.

Since he acted like an adult (albeit one who holds views I oppose to some degree ). I've tried to act like one back. I think the bad feelings left by the aforementioned posters, TAS itself, and the poisoned pool of pseudo-intellectual cultists that this hobby has become have gotten projected onto him

For a good freakshow note all the weird adds on both avguide (TAS and hifi+) and stereophiles home pages .

Also lesslos that does the blackbox have some computer audio stuff too hence a tangent with the topic of fud in computer audio but I simply did not get further than the blackbox
Sorry for to much of topic .